Subhash vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:60637

Court No. - 66

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8808 of 2025

Applicant :- Subhash Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Garun Pal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Garun Pal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Pradeep Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.13 of 2025, under Sections 178, 179, 181, 182, 111(2)B B.N.S., Police Station Atmadpur, District Agra, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per allegation when after receiving information police made a raid of the house of the applicant then from one room of the applicant fake currency were recovered and in the room some instruments were also found, which allegedly used in printing the fake currency and from the spot applicant and co-accused Tejendra were arrested but entire allegation levelled against him is totally false.

¶9

He further submits that actually applicant let out one portion of his house to co-accused Tejendra and it appears, co-accused Tejendra involved in counterfeiting currency and entire recovery was made from his possession from his room and it appears, only being landlord, applicant has also been made accused in the present matter alongwith him. He further submits, a specific averment in this regard has been made in para 10 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application.

¶10

He further submits that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 08.01.2025.

¶11

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that co-accused Tejendra is not the tenant of the applicant and recovery of the fake currency and instruments were made from the house of the applicant and therefore, it cannot be said that applicant was not involved in the present crime.

¶12

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶13

However, as per allegation, from the house of the applicant, fake currency were recovered and it is also alleged that some instruments, which were allegedly used in printing fake currency, were recovered from his house but in para 10 of the affidavit, applicant has made a specific averment that co-accused Tejendera was his tenant and recovery was made from his room. The averment made in para 10 of the affidavit has not been controverted by the State in the counter affidavit and from the entire counter affidavit, it could not be reflected that there is any denial that co-accused was not the tenant of the applicant.

¶14

Further, applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 08.01.2025.

¶15

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶16

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶17

Let the applicant- Subhash , be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the

¶18

following conditions:-

¶19

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶20

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶21

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶23

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶24

Order Date :- 22.4.2025 Zafar

¶25

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Subhash v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajeev Alias Ramu vs State of U.P.

Shashikala vs State of U.P.

Radheshyam Pasi vs State of U.P.

Hasan Ali @ Hasnain Ali vs State of U.P.

Chandan vs State of U.P.

Dildar vs State of U.P.